Good morning, everyone. We are going to get started. Let's get subtle, please. All right,
welcome to day two of the California Transportation Commission hearings here in San Jose. We are going
to get started with Roll Call. Douglas. Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner Bradshaw, Vice Chair
Cruz. Commissioner Brown Heinz. Commissioner Eager. President. Commissioner Grisby. Present.
Commissioner Gordino. Present. Commissioner Mann. Commissioner Tiffany. Here. Chair Falcone. Present.
Senator Cortese. Assemblymember Wilson. Madam Chair, we have a quorum. Thank you, Douglas.
I'm kicking it back to you for instructions for public participation. Thank you.
Welcome to day two of the May 2026 CTC meeting in San Jose.
The meeting agenda is located on our website
at www.catc.ca.gov.
All the presentations for today's meeting
are also available on the commission meetings page
of our website under the view,
download meeting materials tab.
Any document the CTC creates can be translated
into any language that you need.
Simply email us at ctc at catc.ca.gov.
We will have them return to you as quickly as possible.
American Sign Language Translation
is being provided on the webinar for this meeting.
You should see the translators on your screen.
Live closed captioning is also available.
Please select the show captions tab
at the bottom of your screen.
There are a number of language options
available there to choose from.
For our presenters,
If you're on the agenda to make a presentation,
please do your best to be succinct.
Please remember to speak at a steady pace
to allow our translating services adequate time
for accurate translations.
And if you're presenting remotely,
we hope that you will turn on your camera
during your presentation, if you have one.
For the members of the public,
we welcome comments from the public
as part of each item at this meeting.
For those attending in person,
please submit a speaker slip to the clerk,
that's me at the front of the room,
and let us know that you want to comment on an item.
of a few speaker subs here, there's more in the back
with the other meeting materials.
For those attending via Zoom,
you should see the webinar control panel
likely located at the bottom of your screen.
There you will find the raised hand and Q and A tabs.
We encourage you to use the raised hand feature
as early into the item as you can
to give the system time to acknowledge you.
Commission staff will let you know
when it's your turn to make your comment.
Alternately, you may use a Q and A tab
to submit your comment.
please be sure to include the agenda item number
you are commenting on and commission staff
will read that comment on your meeting.
As a reminder, each registered attendee
is provided a unique link to access the webinar.
These should not be shared with other participants
as they are registered to your name
and can create confusion for staff
when you're trying to make your comments.
For all of our meeting attendees,
please do your best to be concise.
Please make sure that your comments add new information.
If you agree with the comments of a previous speaker,
simply make that statement.
Please remember to speak at a steady pace
to allow our translating services adequate time
for accurate translations.
And since we often have many speakers,
we ask that you make your point in two minutes or less.
If for some reason we have many speakers on any single topic,
we reserve the right to limit comments
to one minute as needed.
Thank you for joining us today.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Douglas.
To begin, we're gonna go to the consent calendar,
tab 38 with Mr. Mann.
Commissioners tabs 38 through 58 are action items on the consent calendar
Please make note of the change list for tabs 41 42 and 54 staff recommends your approval of tops 38 through 58
Thank You Justin any public comment
Not seeing any requests to comment at this time. Okay. Thank you. Any questions comments motion from the dais
motion by the vice chair Cruz seconded by commissioner Tiffany on favor
extensions, okay, that tab passes. We will go now to tab 20 proposed 2026 aeronautics
acquisition and development program. Elika joining us virtually. Good morning. Good morning
commissioners. Tab 20 is an informational item presenting the Caltrans division of
Aeronautics proposed 2026 Aeronautics Acquisition and Development Program, or A&D. The A&D is a two-year
program providing state grants to airports for planning, construction, and land acquisition.
These projects are selected based on the most recently adopted Capital Improvement Plan,
which was adopted in June 2025. At the December 2025 meeting, the commission adopted the amendment
to the Aeronautics Capital Improvement Plan ranking priority matrix, which includes expanded
priority areas to include three new categories, climate action, equity and environmental justice,
and economic development and multimodal access. The amended matrix was used for the ranking of
projects in this A and D program. The 2026 A and D program which covers fiscal years 2026-27 and
2027-28 includes 18 projects valued at 4.1 million dollars. Commissioners this is an informational
item and will return at the commission's June 2026 meeting for adoption. Thank you, Elika. Any
public comment? No, we did not receive any request to comment on this item. Okay, thank you. Any
questions or comments from the dais on this item? Okay, seeing none, thank you Alika. Thank you.
Next tab 21 Caltrans airspace program audit part two, Tim Sobelman. Thank you. Good morning
commissioners. Tab 21 is an information item. Please note the yellow replacement
item as referenced on the change list. Following a fire that broke out at an
airspace site underneath Interstate 10 in Los Angeles in November of 2023, the
Independent Office of Audits Investigations conducted a review of the
Caltrans Airspace Program focusing on the airspace site where the fire
occurred. In February of 2026, Caltrans received a second audit focusing on the
administration of their statewide airspace program which identified
deficiencies in lease management practices. Our corrective action plan was
requested to be developed to respond to the recommendations related to the three
main findings in the second audit. Caltrans is here today to discuss the
second audit and the draft corrective action plan.
Renee Fletcher, Caltrans Division Chief of Right Away and Land Surveys is here
to provide a presentation. I'll turn it over to Renee. Good morning.
Chair Falcone and commissioners, again, my name's Renee Fletcher, the division chief
for right of way and land surveys, and I'm here to share with you the findings of the
airspace audit part two and Caltrans proposed resolutions in the form of the corrective
action plan.
So next slide.
So the key points of this presentation is that the audit did identify significant compliance
issues. The proposed corrective action plan referred to as the CAP plan in this presentation
will require operational changes statewide. Essential to the CAP plan are increased oversight,
staffing and training, as well as compliance enforcement and new statewide reporting tools.
the proposed CAT plan shall show the department's compliance
of a goal of April of 2027.
Next slide.
So the audit part two consisted of 13 randomly selected
leases from districts three, four, seven, and 11.
All of the sites were either leased as open storage
or for parking.
The lease terms varied in age from six years to 32 years.
Next slide.
So the audit resulted in three key findings,
finding one that Caltrans circumvented
the state's competitive bidding laws
and the California Transportation Commission's guidelines
when it improperly entered
and extending several airspace leases.
Finding two that Caltrans inspection
and monitoring practices fell to adequately protect the public from the storage of potentially
dangerous materials at certain airspace sites and finding three that Caltrans did not always
enforce the financial terms of its lease agreements and its underbuilding of several tenants calls
into question the fairness of our billing practices. Next slide. So the next few slides
are quite busy so I want to just share with you that at the top of the slide is the actual
audit finding. The column on the left is the auditor's recommendations. The column in the
middle is the Caltrans proposed corrective actions to address the auditor's recommendations
and the third column is our target completion date. I will leave out the target completion date
for the sake of time just understanding that our goal is to have everything in the cap plan
completed by April of 2027. So focusing on the audit part two finding one which again that Caltrans
circumvented the state's competitive bidding laws and the California Transportation Commission's
guidelines when it improperly entered into or extended several airspace leases. The auditor
recommended that we identify all expired airspace leases that have been entered
into on a holdover period and immediately place those properties up
for auction or if the circumstances and terms are consistent with the
Commission's resolution directly negotiate a new lease with the
respective tenants and the department's proposed correction action is to we've
we've already started, but develop a contract for delivery to be developed
with the districts identifying all holdover leases and the date by which
the districts will comply. To the greatest extent possible, all holdovers
will be resolved within a 12-month period. District directors and Caltrans
executive team will be given quarterly updates which have already started on
on the progress of the contract for delivery
by headquarters right-of-way based on district information.
We also propose that headquarters right-of-way staff
attend the district auctions.
And then we, lastly, we propose
that we are requesting additional staff
to act as regional coordinators in the districts.
So these coordinators will be headquarters corporate staff,
but reside in the respective districts
to provide in-person oversight,
overview of the department's policy
and procedures compliance,
and the request for these additional regional coordinators
has been made to the Department of Finance.
The next recommendation for finding one
is from the auditors was to develop a tracking process
to notify management when leases are nearing expiration
and take the necessary steps to ensure those properties
are subject to an auction in accordance with the law
and the commission's resolution.
Our corrective action,
the districts will input information
into our right-of-way management information system,
we call it ROMUS,
to track expiration dates of all lease
within the district's inventory.
And headquarters will provide a quarterly report
to notify the districts of expired leases.
In addition, all the quarterly meetings
with the district directors headquarters right of way
will provide an accountability report
on all outstanding holdovers in the district.
Next slide.
This continuation of finding one.
The auditors recommended that we unless expressly authorized
by the commission ensure future lease agreements
do not include a holdover clause allowing tenants
to remain on the property when their leases expire.
Our proposed corrective actions, headquarters right of way will request that the commission
change its resolution to allow for a six-month holdover period at the maximum. After six months
of holdover, the tenancy must be terminated. Tenants will be notified by the districts at
least six months before the lease expires and that the lease will terminate on expiration date.
and finally the guidance on how to prepare for the upcoming lease expiration will be provided to
the districts. And the last recommendation, integrate a management level approval and
justification process when district staff decides to directly negotiate with prospective tenants.
We propose that the delegation for all existing airspace leases be modified. We've already
started that process. All leases will be reviewed and approved by headquarters right of way.
Headquarters right of way will complete quality enhancement joint reviews. Those are like our
internal audits with each district. Delegations will be returned to the districts on a case by
case basis after robust reviews and continual demonstration of policy compliance. Next slide.
So audit part two, finding two, and this was that Caltrans inspection and monitoring practices
failed to adequately protect the public from the storage of potentially dangerous materials
at certain airspace sites. The auditor recommended that we develop a tracking process for safety
violations identified in internal and external inspections, including notifying higher level
management and appropriate legal staff when tenants fail to address such
problems. Our corrective actions headquarters right-of-way will send the
district a monthly reminder of outstanding internal inspections for the
next two months and it will include outstanding safety violations. The
districts will send completed external inspections state fire marshal reports
to headquarters right-of-way completed within the month, along with a monthly inspection
response report on all outstanding safety violations. The districts will utilize an
updated ROMUS, tracking system monitor, elevate and track safety violations for both internal
and external inspections. And finally, headquarters right-of-way will complete a training course
on file completion components, which all airspace staff much must take. Training will be recorded
and all new staff assigned to airspace must take the training. The auditors recommended
that we ensure timely and decisive administrative or legal action. Actions are pursued to protect
public safety and the transportation system. And our corrective action includes within
the monthly inspection report submitted to headquarters right of way, the information
pertaining to administrative and legal actions will be noted and concurrences from all level
of management will be required with signatures. And finally, the districts will be required
to update update and maintain a statewide unlawful detainer action
spreadsheet until aromas tracking system has been completed. Next slide. Okay and
then finding three again that Caltrans did not always enforce the financial
terms of its lease agreements. It's under billing of several tenants calls
into question the fairness of its billing practices. The auditor recommended
that we develop a process to ensure that districts keep track of and apply the
appropriate escalation rate to leases based on the terms of the executed
agreements. Our proposed corrective action headquarters right-of-way will
develop an annual escalation rate which will be evaluated every five years by
headquarters right-of-way and will be based on regional areas. The districts
Districts will audit all records for escalation terms and cross reference the results with
what is being billed in the accounting system by June 30th of 2026.
Districts will be required to receive back rent owed.
All tenants shall be notified by February 1st of 2027 of balances that are due as a
result of incorrect billing and escalation rates.
All tendencies that are underpaying rent must be on a repayment plan by May 31st of 2027
with the final payment received by June 30th, 2028.
Any extensions of repayment plans will be on a case-by-case basis as approved by headquarters
right away.
And then the auditor's recommended that we ensure all future lease agreements have appropriate
escalation rate.
are correct action is that all future leases will include a flat rate of a flat rate annual
escalation that will be noted in the rent section of the agreement. The agreement will
include the date the escalation will take place and the amount of rent due at that time.
Next slide. So this slide shows the timeline from the audit release to the CAT plan.
So on February 12th, the audit part two was released on that same day, we did a briefing,
a pre-briefing with the district director.
We submitted the CAPP to the independent office of audits and investigation on April 13th,
August 10th, our first CAPP status report will be due to IOAI, which is the independent
Office of Audits and Investigations, and then April 13th of 2027 CAP completion.
Next slide. This slide demonstrates the established Caltrans reporting requirements.
Headquarters right-of-way holds weekly hot topics with the districts. This is mandatory
for all of the right-of-way agents in the airspace function. We do quarterly updates to the CTC
that are provided in Resolution G2414. District and Headquarters executives meet quarterly
to review the airspace inventory and progress for compliance. And Independent Office of
Audits and Investigation will be provided by annual and annual reports in August of 2026
and February of 2027. And we hope that we will be sharing those with you as well. Next slide.
So what's next? Building demolition. As mentioned in prior reporting to the
Commission we have many buildings that are under over or next to the structure
that will need to be demolished. The plan for these will be established in the
contracts for delivery prepared by the districts. Lease buyouts, some leases with
terms greater than what we currently permit will need to be bought out
to comply with the new program guidelines. This will also be noted in
the contracts for delivery prepared by the districts. Direct negotiations, leases
and holdovers that meet the criteria for direct negotiations will be brought
before the Commission for approval. Auctions for sites that are
currently vacant or in holdover will be prepared for auction and training of
staff. On-demand training for agents has and will continually be developed to ensure agents are
knowledgeable in the proper actions required in the function. Next slide. Last slide. Thank you.
That concludes my presentation and I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you very much, Renee.
Before we do that, any public comment? No, there was no request to comment on this item.
Okay. Thank you, Justin. Any questions or comments from the dais? Commissioner Eger.
Thank you. So this I've always had a little problem with this relationship. It says that
the commission has oversight over these issues. And I understand that that the audits were triggered
by the fire, but how long has Caltrans actually been out of compliance with the rules and
regulations that have been set up?
Ooh, I can't tell you a specific number of years, but I'm assuming for quite some time.
Yeah.
And we take over, when someone says we have oversight, we take that seriously.
So as you go through this audit and you, I mean, the scariest thing, anybody who's been
a CEO, you know, nobody ever wants a finding, right?
And that you have to report to your board, you have to put your two commissions about
here's what we're doing to fix that.
It doesn't feel like in the past, we've been getting really specific information about,
you know, here's the holdover leases, here's what we're doing to fix that.
the timeline that it's actually going to happen. If people don't get out, here's what we're
going to do and I understand you're going to do unlawful detainers. I would request
that we really get specific information because if we really are charged with having oversight,
we want to make sure that you're doing what you say you're doing and that those timelines
are being met. And if they're not being met, what are the consequences of that? If people
are still holding over and not paying their rent two years from now. We need to have something
that says, here's all the things we tried. And now we have the sheriff involved getting
them out, all of those kinds of things. So I know staff is probably going to kill me
for asking for more information, but I would like really specific information as we look
at the oversight of these audit findings and when we get to 2028, we can all say, okay,
we were watching that. They did everything that they said they were going to do. There's
consequences when they didn't do what they said they're going to do and we feel comfortable
about moving forward with this. So I'm not sure, Paul, what kind of reports we could
be getting.
Yeah, I was going to ask, I don't know, Renee, if you know the answer, but I believe when
you submit a corrective action plan to the Inspector General that there is some reporting
back right on the implementation of it. And so I think maybe that's that's one way and
maybe when you report back to the Inspector General on the implementation of the corrective
action plan, maybe you could report back to us as well.
Yes, I mentioned that we do have to provide biannual and annual updates. So we do plan
on sharing that same update with you as well as adding it into our quarterly reports. And
And I do appreciate your concern with the accountability, and that's why we are developing
that contract for delivery so that every district will have their entire inventory listed, whether
it's in holdover, whether it's delinquent rent, whether it's one that will never be
in compliance because of the, you know, the building, the roof is the structure itself.
So every district will have a contract for delivery that outlines what the status is,
what the actions that need to be taken place, and basically what the consequences of those
actions don't, you know, come to fruition.
So that's what we're asking the district to do.
And we've given them a deadline of June of this year to have that initial contract for
delivery so that we can review it.
some of these holdovers that will never be in compliance will require funding, right?
And I just want to give you one example.
District four, we were able to get a mini storage that was vacated and it needs to be
demolished.
And that the cost of that was a million dollars.
So each one of these bigger airspace leases, we're going to have to include that funding
element in there about what it's going to cost to either buy out the lease or demolish
the structure itself.
So that contract for delivery is going to be like, hopefully what you're asking for.
And I don't think biannually is enough because we get six months down the line, that's a
little bit late.
So hopefully, quarterly, when you give us those reports, they're more specific about
here's our finding.
Here were the findings.
Here's what we're doing, here's what we're not doing,
here's what we have to do in the future,
here's those dates that we will have completed that by.
So that way then when the next quarter comes along,
we can go back and look and say,
wait a minute, you told us by this quarter,
this would be done.
It's still not, what are the consequences of that?
So I appreciate that you have to respond to the audit,
but before you respond to the audit,
it's still our responsibility to make sure
that you're on track.
So I would, at the minimum,
would certainly like to see those quarterly.
Yeah.
One more thing to share is the quarterly report
you have for this meeting, for inspections, for example,
it showed that we were 108 overdue inspections.
The one you're going to get next month
shows that we're down to 24.
So we are showing progress.
Sometimes it's a little delayed because
of the timing of the quarterly report
and then bringing it before the commission.
but hopefully you'll be able to see
that there is progress being made
and we've got a lot more focused attention
from headquarters and oversight
to walk alongside the districts to help them, you know, so.
And did I hear you correctly when you said all of those
that get to that point where
there's nothing you're gonna be able to do
and there's still people there,
there's still holdovers there
that all of those you'll be filing unlawful detainers on?
Well, so the ones that will never be in compliance,
like in district seven, for example,
there's a whole lot of businesses
that are under structures
that don't meet the new program guidelines, right?
Those will have to take a look at the leases.
If they're still paying the rent, you know,
they're not delinquent.
So we don't have a legal act into,
but we got to look at the leases
in the terms of what they signed up for,
because some of these leases are decades old.
And so each one has got to be evaluated.
And then that should be all in the contract for delivery.
So we'll get a list of those two,
that these are, they're not paying anymore,
they're out of compliance,
we've filed unlawful detainers on these,
we'll get that in our report?
It got, yes, we can do that.
Thank you.
We can do that.
You're talking to an attorney, I'm sorry.
That's okay, we can do that.
Thank you.
Okay.
And it shows.
Before we go to Commissioner Tiffany,
I wanna give an opportunity
for Chief Deputy Binns to respond.
Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair.
And Renee, thank you for the report.
We definitely have our hands full
over the next few months.
Commissioner Eager, your questions are very fair
and reasonable.
We do need to do a better job of managing our airspace.
Do we need to be accountable?
Absolutely, we need to be accountable.
just wanted to highlight one thing for me that I want to tell you that I'm
focusing on that it's finding number two that is kind of most alarming to me and
that's paramount that that we have to separate that finding from dealing with
the other findings because at times will we're focused on maybe terminating the
lease as you know there's legal requirements to give notice whether it's
30 60 or some other day that's in the agreement but safety we have allowances
in there that we can act immediately, right? So we need to be out there, regular intervals,
looking for safety issues. And that's what I've been talking to the team about, Renee's
team and some of the district directors, that we don't have to wait on getting rid of the
lease. Safety issues, we need to be out there on the front line. And if we see something,
we're going to act immediately. We have the authority to do that.
Thank you for that, Chief Deputy. I'm going to go to Commissioner Tiffany.
Thank you, Sheriff Haakon.
Renee, thank you for your presentation.
I want to dig into a little bit more into the holdover leases.
So I see in your presentation, you say that the goal is to within 12 months to have all
the holdover leases resolved, if I understand correctly, so then there wouldn't be any month
to month.
also you have also a recommendation that there would be a six-month kind of grace
period where there would be before holdovers are resolved there could be
six months of month-to-month with certain leases. Can you explain why you're
requesting that? Sure. So we took a look at the industry and you know when you
look at people that lease property typically after their lease expires, you
go month to month. With Caltrans, I put holdovers in three categories. We've got
those that can be auctioned, those that would be subject to directly negotiate,
and the third, holdovers that will never be compliant and we need to terminate. So
for the auctions we it requires an appraisal it requires an environmental
document it requires a district airspace review we have to notify the we've got
to do brochures we it takes we have to post it for 30 days so sometimes it can
take a little time to get those auctions ready and we want to make sure that
that we're not doing just one parcel at an auction.
We want to make sure we can group, you know,
in a certain area, you know,
a handful of parcels at one time.
I know District 4 did one and they had like 30 parcels.
So if we don't give ourselves a little bit of flexibility
with the time a lease expires
and the time to get it out of holdover,
we fear that we would always be non-compliant.
So we're asking for a little bit of time
before we get that negative check mark that we can work to get the auction out,
bring it before the commission to, you know, for the meeting to directly negotiate. And then the
second meeting to, for approval, you know, based on the commission's calendar. So, um, when we
were, um, you know, analyzing it, we felt like a six month window would give us sufficient time
When Elise expires to get in the end, then the people may not be the successful bidder. The second time so that that lessee may need a little extra time to get out while the new lessee comes in. So if we had a little bit of
Flexibility and that sick that window. That's what we were hoping
And then by the before the end of that six month window there would know there would not be any
further holdovers of that particularly.
No, right.
And it may not take this full six months.
I mean, we are going to be proactive in working
with the districts to give them reporting, you know, hey,
you've got these leases that are going
to be expiring in the next three months.
What's your plan?
Are you going to be auctioning them off?
Are they subject to a direct negotiation?
So we're gonna be having more oversight
and communication with the district
so that we don't just get to that lease expiration date
and say, oh, you know, now what?
You know, we're gonna be giving them plenty of help.
But it would be the exception rather than the rule.
And obviously, as you just said,
you don't wanna wait till the actual expiration
because then there will always be a need for a grace period.
right, you would have to be every district I would assume would be tracking closely the leases to
anticipate the end of the lease so that by the time the lease ends hopefully there doesn't need
to be a holdover. Yeah they have a plan and we'll be we'll be working with them on that plan. And
then I guess this may be a question for the our staff um I don't know Paul or Tim um our resolution
doesn't allow for, my understanding doesn't allow for this kind of a six month grace period. So
I'd like to hear, yeah, what are we going to have? Yeah, so that's, that's in there. In the
corrective action plan they submitted to the inspector general. One of the actions is to
request us to change our resolution to allow for a six month holdover. I think that's something
that we've started to have conversations with them about and will continue to do so to understand
the implications a little bit better and the need for it. And we can report back and let you know in
the future. Yes, we'd have to amend the resolution. Yep. Okay, thank you. And then just a separate
question on the overdue inspections. And I know you touched on this, but what's your anticipation
as far as when those are all going to be cleaned up? There won't be any overdue inspections.
That's one question. And then specifically, I'm curious about the inspections that the
Fire Marshall has where we failed and it doesn't sound like there is a solution. So what's
your timeframe on getting those specific failed inspections taken care of?
So like I had mentioned, you know this report shows 108 inspections overdue.
Currently we're at like 24 overdue.
So we're on our next round of quarterly updates with the district directors.
And it's just a matter, I mean we're close.
We're really close to getting caught up with all of our inspections.
inspections are there either quarterly or they're annually depending on the
lease type so if it's a leased for a parking it may be on an annual if so it
depends on the cycle so I anticipate being caught up very soon and hopefully
you'll get a report that's that shows we're 100% compliant with those with
With those that have outstanding fire marshal violations, so it varies and we have to really
look at the site specifics.
If it's that they need to replace their fire extinguishers, those are easy fixes.
If it's one like in Los Angeles where they're using the underside of the structure as their
roof and they're hanging lights and things like that those are going to take time because those
are both going to be the ones that we have to look at the lease terms look at buying out the lease.
You know it's it's much more complicated so I don't have a timeline on when those will be
resolved I can tell you it'll probably be years. Do you expect that maybe the next time
to us that we could actually have a specific timeframe on.
How many are we talking about that are yes, how many?
How many of these failed fire marshal inspections are there out there?
Yeah, and we think that's why we've asked for this contract for delivery by June, the end of June.
So by the end of June, we should have a good understanding of the entire inventory and the categories of where these are falling.
Are these going to be the long-term parcels or the leases
that we need to go through and buy out leases?
So we'll have a list of those.
Now are there penalties that come
with a failure from the fire marshal?
I'm not aware of any penalties.
It's just that we're never going to get a...
It's always going to be a failed fire marshal report.
It's just always going to be a failure.
So they don't shut down the business or anything unless I mean, I'm not aware of that.
Okay. Well, I would like to see the next time that we do have a quarterly presentation, a report specifically on the failed fire Marshall inspections.
That would be great. Okay. Thank you.
That's it. Okay. We have a
question from or comments from
Commissioner man. Joining
virtually. Thank you so much.
Um and thank you for for that
presentation. Um my question is
to as you talked about some of
the next steps. Um part of what
you you also mentioned was
how many of those do you anticipate? Who's paying for them? All of that type of information. And
then my my other question, and if to what Commissioner Tiffany was speaking of, is that
when you have these when you find that you have leases where you have these failed fire marshal
inspections and other things that you found within the lease terms, as you've been doing this this
process. And I know that Caltrans has both been behind and it sounds like there's a lot of work
that's been done to catch up, so thank you for all of your work. But as you think about future
leases, are there different terms that you're thinking about incorporating into them to address
these concerns in the future? So those two questions, the first one had to do with building
demolition, the next one is future leases. Thank you. Yeah, so the building demolition,
So, what has to take place is we have to look at the lease terms when the when the lease was originally entered into some of the lease language indicates that the tenant is responsible for demolition and some don't have that language.
So,
for example, the one in district for the
storage. This is a case where they vacated. They were supposed
to demolish it, but there was a lot of it was very attractive to
others occupying that space. So we had to go forth and spend the
money to demo it, but it is in legal and legal will try to
recover that money. So it depends on the lease language as to who's responsible for demolishing
the structure itself. And so every lease will be looked at. And as far as the money, the
money would have to if it's our responsibility, then the department would have to come up
with the funds to demolish it. And then your other. What was your other question?
The other question had to do with future leases
and thoughts about what you're incorporating
into those moving forward.
So future leases, we've completely overhauled
our airspace leasing program.
So right now, the only new leases that we're entering into
are for daily vehicle parking,
utility type infrastructure.
we've really reduced the types of leases that we'll enter into. We'll no longer allow any type
of buildings or structures. And so that has really pared down the type of lease. All our leases will
be limited to three to five years. We are no longer going to have 55-year leases with 10-year
extensions, those are those are gone. But so all our leases will be limited to the three to five
years, which will help us keep up to date with, you know, the fair market rent and all of that.
So really, we've really reduced the our ability to lease for just about everything that we've been
doing you know we've been very good the state of California we've been you know
leading the nation our airspace program other states don't allow any none of the
things that we actually do so yeah any other comments or questions quick I
think you may have answered vice chair but thank you madam chair just to follow
up on some of the questions regarding the fire inspection failures it sounds
like you're doing and taking steps to mitigate like potential fire risk on
new leases right what about existing leases on those inspections are they
going out and talking to these holders about making improvements on site
because the ITIN fire was a lesson it's catastrophic it was 33 million dollars
to clean up and and get that project back to safety standards and we don't
want that happening again obviously. I guess the other question is is there
be a distinction when you report back to the commission between a lease holder who has just
some simple fixes like you talked about fire extinguishers versus the other ones who have to
have some major improvements done to mitigate that fire risk. So if we see okay so there are
a couple categories. If it's a you know a fire extinguisher or something like that we can handle.
If they have flammable material that they're storing, we're out there and they we've already sent them, you know, two years ago, the updated guidelines that they're you're no longer allowed to store flammable material pallets, you know, any of that stuff.
Right. So if we see that we notice them directly.
And if they're in violation, then we have a legal remedy to to do something.
right. So we're not waiting for those types of situations, there's no, no negotiation,
right, where you either get it out from underneath the structure, or there's consequences. So,
but we're finding that the tenants that and that I've sent my headquarters team, I applaud them
to review every single airspace site in the state and they have noticed things and have
contacted the district and they said we've noticed that there's some you know uh boxes or pallets
so that they can immediately address it and get those moved so we're being very hands-on and
engaged. And those violations are written up they don't just call up the district saying hey I saw
Boxes piled up here. It's actually in writing that says here's what we found so that
They might can take action on it. Yeah, my team if they see something
They will send an email immediately to the district and say that we've saw these they will take pictures
and send pictures
we've had
an incident where the state fire marshal was out there and
Noticed something and took a picture and sent it to headquarters. So we're we're kind of
We've turned in kind of like a police. We're policing them in a little way. We're
really trying to make sure that that we're helping them help themselves.
Can I just ask a quick question? Yes, go ahead. I'm new to the to the commission and I'm just
wondering once the corrective actions have been taken and we are in compliance, is this something
that this issue with airspace leases comes to the Commission then I know we'll have the
quarterly reporting up until that point but then after that is this something that at least we're
all in compliance everything is great and then we hear the reporting regularly is that will that
happen as well quarterly or I guess that's my question. You're asking about cadence. Yes once
it's once it's all in compliance. Yeah just so it doesn't happen again. Yeah as far as I'm aware
there's no end date to the quarterly reporting, correct? I think it's just ongoing. So even after
you're in compliance with the Inspector General, the quarterly report to us will continue.
Thank you, colleagues, for all of your conscientious questions. And thank you,
Renee. We know that this has already been a tremendous effort in the part of you and your
And so, you know, we're trying
to get our team, um, you know,
to essentially, you know, try
to, um, you know, remedy this
this huge, um, you know, issue
with our public assets. I mean,
that's what it is, is that
the items to the best that you can and your staff can on the items that that my colleagues
have brought up today. So thank you for addressing our questions and for your thorough presentation
and we look forward to upcoming updates from you. Thank you.
Okay, thank you.
And I wanted to acknowledge the presence of Senator Cortez. Thank you so much for joining
So, that's a very good question.
Thank you.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you.
All right.
We are going to move forward to tab 59, moving to the right-of-way matters.
John Prey.
Yes.
Good morning, commissioners.
So, 59 through 63 are all requests to negotiate, to directly negotiate airspace leases with
private entities.
We're not going to be grouping these items, but I do have some general comments to say
about these before we go through them one by one.
It's timely that this now is coming right after that presentation.
Just in case anybody was confused, I had written this.
Airspace lease is when Caltrans leases space above, below, or adjacent to the state right
away, such as, for example, a parking lot underneath an overpass.
And despite the growing pains that we're currently working through, airspace leases are advantageous
to the state, advantageous to the state,
because they generate revenue
and they reduce maintenance costs for Caltrans.
So, in leasing airspace, Street and Highway Code 104.12
requires that they be competitively bid
unless the commission finds by unanimous vote
that a direct negotiation is in the best interest
of the state.
Caltrans's policies divides commission approval
for this process of the direct negotiation into two parts.
Part one is requesting permission from the commission
to directly negotiate,
instead of going through the competitive bid.
And then part two, once negotiations are complete,
is when Caltrans requests the commission's approval
of the actual lease.
All five of these requests before us today are for part one,
where Caltrans is requesting permission
to directly negotiate.
And in all five of these situations,
Caltrans has determined and commission staff concurs that a direct negotiation is in the
best interest of the state instead of going to competitive bid.
The reasons for that are found in the posted book items, and I'll quickly highlight a few
of the details for each lease before making a recommendation individually on each item.
So we'll start with tab 59.
This is an action item requesting approval to directly negotiate an airspace lease needed
to construct an 800-foot residential tower in San Francisco.
This airspace lease is needed on a temporary basis to allow underground tieback rods to
encroach under State Route 101 to provide structural shoring during their below-grade
excavation phase of construction.
construction is complete, the rods are expected to be detentioned and abandoned in place, and then
the lease will no longer be needed. So this will be a temporary airspace lease just for during
construction. Staff recommends your approval of tab 59. Okay, thank you John. Any public comment?
No, there's no request comment on this item. Okay, any questions, comments, or motion from the dais?
Okay motion by Commissioner Tiffany, second by Commissioner Eger. All in favor. Any opposed
extensions. Okay that item passes 60. All right tab 60 is an action item requesting approval to
directly negotiate a another airspace lease for this same residential tower. In this case an
an airspace lease is needed above State Route 101
to accommodate a tower crane with a 243 foot boom
that will rotate over State Route 101 during construction.
The crane will be removed after construction,
and staff recommends approval of Tab 60.
Okay, thank you, John.
Any public comment?
No, there was no request to comment on this item.
All right, questions, comments?
Motion from the dais.
Make a motion.
Okay, motion by Commissioner Tiffany.
Second by Commissioner Guardino.
All in favor?
Aye.
Aye.
Noes, opposed?
Okay, that item passes.
61.
61.
Tab 61 is an action item requesting approval
to directly negotiate an airspace lease
with an existing McDonald's site in Los Angeles County.
The state owned land is designated for a drainage easement
and is only accessible through the McDonald's property
and is currently being used for customer parking
under an airspace lease that is in holdover status.
This negotiation is to renegotiate that lease,
which would move it out of the holdover status.
Staff recommends approval of tab 61.
Okay, thank you.
Any public comment?
There's no requested comment on this item.
Alright, questions, comments, motion from the dais.
Question, so if it's in holdover status,
is that, are they up to date in their payments?
I mean, before they get a new lease,
don't they have to bring it all?
That's a good question, and I don't know the answer to that.
They are?
Who's talking up there?
Do you like her to come say that in the morning?
I'm Renee Fletcher.
Yeah, come on up, Renee.
Make the long walk.
Welcome back to the podium.
Stay closer.
Yes, they are up to date.
And this is the only tenant that would
benefit from this particular site.
We will be looking at the fair market rent
and making sure that they're paying fair market rent.
Great.
Thank you.
With that, I'll make the motion.
OK.
Motion to approve by Commissioner Eger.
Second by Commissioner Brown-Hines, all in favor?
Can you pose, abstentions?
Okay, that item passes.
Tab 62, John.
Tab 62 is an action item requesting approval
to directly negotiate an airspace lease
with Waste Management and Recycling Incorporated
in Los Angeles County.
Similar to Tab 61, this land is only accessible
to the adjacent property owner and prospective tenant
who is using it for parking under an airspace lease
that is also in holdover status.
And so again, once again,
this would move it out of holdover status.
Staff recommends approval of tab 62.
Thank you, John, public comment.
And they're paid up, right?
Okay.
Public comment.
There's no request to comment on the item.
All right, thank you.
Any questions, comments, motion from the dais?
So moved.
Okay. Moved by Commissioner Eger. Second by Commissioner Tiffany. All in favor?
Aye.
Opposed? Abstentions? That item passes. Tab 63.
Tab 63.
Oh, John, okay.
Oh, sorry.
That's 10.
Oh, we traded. I'm on a roll.
Yes you are.
Tab 63 is an action item requesting approval to directly negotiate an airspace lease with
L.A. Aerial Rapid Transit Technologies LLC located in Los Angeles County. This
is a private company that's proposing to construct a gondola system that will
connect Los Angeles Union Station to Dodger Stadium. An airspace lease is
needed for the right to pass over State Route 110. A direct negotiation is in the
best interest of the state because there are no other bidders interested in
and leasing this airspace above State Route 110.
As noted on the change list,
the commission did receive letters concerning this item.
There are six letters available as meeting handouts
and they're all in support of this item.
Staff recommends approval of Tab 63.
Okay, thank you, John.
Any public comment?
There was no request to comment on this item.
Okay, great.
Any questions, comments, motion from the dais?
Just have a comment.
Yes. This one's really cool.
Okay, gondola going over. I like it. I'm gonna make the motion. Okay. Madam Chair, I do wonder whether I should recuse myself as a giant Sam.
That's up to your own conscience.
Okay.
All right, moved by Commissioner eager seconded by Vice Chair Cruz on favor. I.
And he knows abstentions. Okay that tab carries passes. Thank you tab 64 John. Okay since you're on a roll. Yeah, this is different tab 64 is an action item to approve the execution of one directors deed in accordance with section 118 of the streets and highways code.
Act and the State Route 710 sales program regulations. This unoccupied single
family residential property in the city of Los Angeles is being sold to a
housing related entity operating under the name HRE El Serino LLC. The property
is being sold for the original acquisition price of $23,850. As a
As a reminder, properties sold at less than fair market value are subject to recorded
covenants containing use and resale restrictions to ensure use as affordable rental housing
for a term of 55 years or affordable owner-occupied housing for a term of 45 years.
Staff recommends approval of tab 64.
Okay.
Thank you, John.
Public comment?
There was no requested comment on this item.
Okay.
Questions?
Comments?
seconded. Seconded seconded.
Commissioner Tiffany, favor?
Nay.
No abstentions. Okay, that tab passes. 65, Tim.
Thank you. Commissioners, tab 65 is an action item for a signs and lighting rehabilitation
project on State Route 57 in Los Angeles County requesting an initial allocation for the right
of way support phase that exceeds the program to mount by more than 20%. The right of way
phase was programmed for $219,000 and Caltrans is requesting an allocation of $600,000. The
additional funding is needed due to scope refinement during the environmental phase
and the need of an increased number of temporary construction easements and temporary access
you. Mr's met. Commission staff
has reviewed the project and the
book item for tab 65 and
recommends approval. Thank you,
Tim. Any public comment? No,
there was no request of comment
on the item right right back at
the dais. Any questions,
comments? Motion Motion by
Commissioner Eger, seconded by
by Commissioner Guardino. We'll
okay that item passes. 66 back at you Tim. Thank you.
Commissioners I will be presenting 66 and 67 together with the recommendation
at the end. Type 66 is an action item for a pavement preservation project on
State Route 89 in Plumas County requesting 620,000 in supplemental funds
to complete the right-of-way support phase. The project realized cost
increases due to an increased number of
And the supplemental funds are being
requested to address budgets for these
project phases as the initial
allocations were inadvertently requested
at an amount less than what was necessary to complete the environmental phase for all
four projects. The supplemental funds being requested will bring project budgets to match
the original programmed amounts. Commission staff has reviewed the projects and the book
items for tabs 66 and 67 and recommends approval. Okay, thank you, Tim. Any public comments on 66
and 67? No, there was no request to comment on either of these items. Thank you. Any questions,
comments. Motion from the dice. Okay motion by Commissioner Brownhine.
Seconded by. Second. By Commissioner Tiffany. All in favor of 66 and 67. Any
noes, abstentions? Okay those two items pass. We have tab 68 69 70 and 71. Tim.
Thank you. Yes, I will present tabs or item 68 through 71 with a recommendation
at the end. Tab 68 is an action item for pavement preservation and bridge rail
replacement and upgrade project on State Route 66 and Interstate 215 in San
Bernardino County that is requesting four million one hundred and twenty six
thousand in supplemental funds to award the construction contract. The contract
was advertised in November of 2025 and the bid opening was in February of 26. Caltrans
received five bids of which were between 14.2% and 30.2% above the engineer's estimate. A
few of the larger unit price differences between the engineer's estimate and the low bidder
are related to mobilization, structural concrete, traffic control items, and temporary signal
items. Type 69 is an action item for a roadway rehabilitation and multimodal corridor enhancement
project on US 50 and Sacramento County requesting 4,500,000 in supplemental funds to complete
construction. This item is the project's fifth supplemental funds request and a few
of the reasons for the current supplemental funds are related to increases in enhanced
work zone enforcement, redesign and construction of sidewalks, driveways and drainage elements
to meet city standards, enhanced striping efforts for traffic handling during various
stages of construction, modifications of ITS and electrical elements to meet current standards
and utility conflicts for the installation of electrical and TMS elements.
TAB 70 is an action item for a major damage project on State Route 126 in Ventura County
that is requesting $905,000 in supplemental funds for construction capital and $450,000
in construction support to complete construction. The project realized capital and support cost
increases due to several modifications that were required to meet minimum requirements
to restore functionality and comply with the State Fire Marshal. Capital cost increases
are related to several modifications that were identified during construction. Significant
recommendations are related to replacing instead of repairing fuel tanks, adding
railing around the dock of a storage building, upgrading the gas line
connection, and paving around the wash rack and mechanic workshop. And then tab
71 is an action item for a commercial vehicle enforcement facility and Way in
Motion Scales project on State Route 118 in Ventura County that is requesting
$501,000 in supplemental funds and construction capital to complete construction.
The project realized cost increases to address a contract change order for the reconstruction
of damaged concrete barrier and light pole from a collision by a third party.
Before giving my recommendation for these items, I would like to summarize the total
shop increases, the total increases for supplementals, and allocations greater than 20% of the programmed
amount at the May CTC meeting is approximately $11,500,000. Total increases for the 25-26
fiscal year for supplemental and initial allocations greater than 20% of the program amount is
approximately $473 million. Commission staff has reviewed the projects and book items for
tabs 68-71 and recommends approval.
Okay. Thank you, Tim. Any public comment on these items?
No, there was no request of comment on any of the listed items.
Thank you. Any questions, comments, motion from the dais? I think we have a question
or a comment from Kaushir Tiffany. Thank you, Chair Falcone. On number 70, and
this is probably a question for Caltrans, I hate to have you come all the way down here,
But I see you have your running shoes on, so that's good.
My question on this, and it's really not specifically directed to this particular project, but your
project is one that caught my attention.
It has to do with facilities and in fire marshals, and it seems like we're talking a lot about
fire marshals this morning. But I'm just wondering, number one, we continue to see, seem to see
a number of facility issues, not just in your district but in other districts throughout
the state regarding facilities. And I'm just curious as to why you might think that would
be the case. Maybe we have less experience with facilities than roads or what have you.
So that's one question I have.
And then also in regards to fire marshals,
it seems like in a number of projects, including this one,
that we're running into an expense increase
because the fire marshal is coming along.
It seems like after the fact.
And then we find out we've got to make some changes
to address the fire marshal in the fire marshal comments.
Kind of begs the question
Why isn't the fire marshal involved early on and maybe they are but anyway, I'm just that's my my question
I don't mean to be springing this on you
But again, I'm just curious again more from a statewide standpoint because we keep running into this
So thank you for the question commissioner Tiffany tear Falcone deputy director Galatianski Senecor hazy and all commissioners
Debbie chief
final. Bins. So basically with
facilities projects. They're
almost because I've done
building build outs where we
come in with an empty floor and
you have to go in. So they're
almost design built by nature.
I'm it's not a design built
contract, but it requires the
involvement of State Fire
Marshall along the way. And so
in this particular case, we did
and in this particular case what we did was we got the approval but as we
started doing construction it was a straight replacement but then as your
building the building was constructed in 1977 and so we realized that the need of
a building built in 1977 is not the same as the need for a building for for the
operational needs in 2026. Because we have larger trucks and facilities, EDA
restrictions are more stringent and so that's why we had the additional ramp
and the railing that was required for the storage shed. And so these things
come along as you are doing construction because typically in vertical
construction you have the state farm also do checks as you're moving through
the project, not always just at the very end of the contract to precisely address the situation
that you're saying is, you know, you don't want them to come at the end. And so we do
request for them to come as we're constructing to do periodic checks. What happens, however,
sometimes is it's not always the same person that reviewed and approved the initial plans.
It could be somebody else that's also State Fire Marshal, but just a different individual
that sees things differently, may interpret things a little bit differently, and make
comments and suggestions for and things that we need to comply with. So in essence, we
are learning, but sometimes in that case, it's not always the State Fire Marshal here,
some of the items were, for example, the gas tanks, we truly thought we could just repair
them but in looking at the age of the gas tanks and lines which we made a
cost-benefit analysis and actually made more sense for us to do the replacement.
And so you know with with all of the work that we do with facilities it's
really kind of a craft that we're trying to master and I think we are getting
better at it but in any case the coordination with the State Farm
Marshal is something that we're you know continuing trying to establish you know
a single point of contact if we can through the life of a project.
Thank you very much for the explanation and and I hope that as we've seen in
other areas what you're what you've learned and what you're learning with
facilities and with fire marshals will be passed on to the other districts so
that as we go forward we run into this you know in fewer situations but I
I appreciate you explaining it to me.
Thank you, Gloria.
Thank you.
Thank you, Gloria.
Any other questions or comments?
Any motion?
Okay, so moved.
Four tabs, 68 to 71.
Second by Commissioner Tiffany.
All in favor.
Yay.
Madam Chair, who made the motion?
Commissioner Eger did.
Okay, let's try that again.
All in favor?
Aye.
No, abstentions?
OK, those tabs pass.
Thank you.
All right, tabs 72 and 73, TSEP, Beverly.
Commissioners, I will present tabs 72 and 73 together
with a recommendation at the end.
Tab 72 is an action item to approve
a supplemental allocation of $100,000 in trade corridor
enhancement program funds for the plans, specifications, and estimates phase of the Fix 5 Cascade Gateway I-5 Improvements Shasta project in Shasta and Tohama counties.
The Fix 5 Cascade Gateway I-5 Improvements Shasta project was originally programmed in the 2020 Trade Corridor Enhancement Program with $1,735,000
for the plans, specifications, and estimates phase,
and $138,000 for the right-of-way phase.
The project was subsequently programmed
with $70,849,000 in the 2022 Trade Corridor Enhancement
Program, including $70,399,000 for the construction phase,
and an additional $450,000 for the plans, specifications,
and estimate phase, bringing the total Trade Corridor
enhancement program funding for the plan specifications and estimates phase to $2,185,000.
The Fix Five Cascade Gateway I-5 Improvements Shasta project proposes to add a new truck-only
lane in each direction to improve safety and enhance freight reliability.
The plan specifications and estimates phase is currently 95% complete, but only $7,000
in the budget, which is insufficient to complete the phase.
As the California Highway Patrol
and the Federal Highway Administration
identified traffic operational concerns
that required additional traffic studies.
These studies, completed in April 2026,
identified the need for design modifications,
including updates to signage,
striping, and safety elements.
Therefore, Caltrans is requesting $100,000
and supplemental funds for this phase so that the modifications can be completed.
Supplemental Trade Corridor Enhancement Program allocations are drawn out of the Caltrans
available capacity for the Cycle 5 Trade Corridor Enhancement Program.
Tab 73 is an action item to approve a supplemental allocation of $15 million in Trade Corridor
enhancement program funds for the construction phase of the Rice Avenue and 5th Street grade
separation project in Ventura County. The Rice Avenue and 5th Street grade separation project
was programmed in the 2018 trade corridor enhancement program with $88,306,000,
including $4,406,000 for the plan specifications and estimates phase,
$8 million for the right-of-way phase and $75,900,000 for the construction phase.
In June 2019, the Commission approved supplemental allocations totaling $18,663,000 for the project,
including $15,500,000 for the plan specification and estimates phase and $3,163,000
for the right-of-way phase.
The Rice Avenue and Fifth Street grade separation project
proposes to eliminate an existing
out-grade railroad crossing
and replace it with a grade-separated facility
to eliminate conflicts between freight trains, vehicles,
and people walking and biking,
while also improving freight velocity and reliability.
In July, 2023,
the California State Transportation Agency
awarded the project $15 million
in Port and Freight Infrastructure Program funds. Due to state budget impacts, the Port
and Freight Infrastructure Program funds are no longer available. Therefore, Caltrans and the
City of Oxnard are requesting $15 million in Trade Corridor Enhancement Program funds to replace
the Port and Freight Infrastructure Program funds. If approved, these funds will be drawn
from Caltrans's available cycle 5 Trade Corridor Enhancement Program funding capacity.
Staff has reviewed these requests and recommends approval of tabs 72 and 73.
Thank you, Beverly. Any public comment?
No, there was no request to comment on the items.
Right. Any questions, comments, motion from the dais?
Motion by Commissioner Eger, seconded by Commissioner Gordino. All in favor?
Opposed? Abstentions? Okay, those items pass. Thank you.
TAB 74 to 76 on a Transit and Inner City Rail Capital Program Supplemental Fund
allocations. Brandi. Good morning commissioners. I will be presenting TAB 74
through 76 together with a recommendation at the end. These are
action items to approve allocations totaling 3,670,000 for three
Transit and Inner City Rail Capital Program projects. TAB 74 is an action
item to approve a supplemental allocation for an additional $33,000 for the construction
phase of the TARCP Sonoma Regional Bus and Rail Connectivity Improvements expanding charging
at Bus Yard component in Sonoma County. The cost increases for an essential piece of equipment
to provide electricity from the transformer to the chargers. The supplemental funds are
being redirected from component savings from the construction phase of the charging infrastructure
at a CT facility. Tab 75 is an action item to approve a supplemental allocation for
an additional $3,300,000 for the plans, specifications, and estimate phase of the TIRCP downtown rail
extension TIRCP project development civil and tunnel design component in this in San
Francisco County. These funds would address high-risk critical path design
elements including contract negotiations and the onboarding of
progressive design build civil and tunnel contractor. The supplemental funds
are being redirected from the component savings from the PS&E phase of the
track and system design. Tab 76 is an action item to approve a supplemental
allocation for an additional $337,000 for the construction phase of the TIRCP
Metrolink, Paris Valley line capacity improvements expansion and layover
track component in Riverside County. These funds will cover construction
engineering support and the supplemental funds are being redirected from the
component savings of the PS&E phase of the same component. Please note that tab
76 has a replacement item and was distributed with the updated items this
past Tuesday and is also available with the meeting handouts in the back of the
staff has reviewed these requests and recommends approval of tab 74 through 76.
Thank You Brandy any public comment? No there was no request to comment on the
listed items. Thank you any questions comments on tab 74 to 76? Madam Chair not
a question but I'd like to make a motion on these three items with just an
of the city of Toronto, and
we've got an exclamation point
on item 75 moving Cal train.
Those two additional stations
in San Francisco that so
vitally serves are three
Peninsula counties already. It's
just going to be a game changer
and tying into a transit hub by
the Salesforce Tower is just
expanding it throughout the
region. So with great
Thank you for that that explanation and seconded by Commissioner Eger. All in favor. He knows abstentions. Okay tab seventy four seventy five seventy six passes. We are going to take a quick 10 minute break. And we will resume. Thank you. Okay. Let's proceed with tab 77.
Thank you. Okay, let's proceed with tab 77. Mr. Prey.
Yes, commissioners tab 77 is an action item to approve amendments to the 2026 shop.
There are changes to two projects noted on the change list and the second project actually is
showing the wrong district. It's a district eight project not a district seven project as shown on
the change list. With those changes, these shop amendments will add 44 new projects and
revise 46 projects in the 2026 shop. Of the 44 new projects, 39 of them are coming from
the major damage reservation and four of them are coming from the safety reservation. So
that leaves just one of the 44 new projects that's not coming from a reservation. As a
As a reminder, reservation is funds set aside for these projects that come up mid cycle.
So this one project that's not coming from a reservation, this is a new project.
It's a roadway rehabilitation project on State Route 99 in Fresno County.
This is a reprogram of a very large roadway rehabilitation project that lapsed because
Caltrans was not able to secure funding or railroad approval.
It's being reprogrammed as a smaller project that avoids the railroad impacts, and it's
also being reprogrammed as a G-13 contingency project, which means it will not get construction
funding unless savings or additional revenues are identified.
And then the 46 projects that are being revised, those are just various proactive changes to
scope cost schedule on these projects.
Staff recommends your approval of tab 77.
Thank you, John.
Any public comment?
No, there was no request to comment on the item right questions comments motion from the dais
So moved by Commissioner eager seconded by
By Commissioner Tiffany all in favor
Pose abstention
Hey that tab passes
tab 78 to 83
Tsep back to you Beverly
Commissioners, I will present tabs 78 through 83 together with a recommendation at the end
Tap 78 is a scope for amendment requests for the forum mobility beyond the dock heavy-duty
Electification of the port of Oakland priority trade quarters project, which was jointly nominated by Caltrans and for mobility and programs with
2 million five hundred seventy eight thousand dollars and the twenty twenty four trade quarter enhancement program
Forum Mobility is requesting to reduce the number of total charging ports and to upgrade the upgrade the chargers to the megawatt charging system
Which will increase truck throughput and charging capacity at the site
due to a reduction in total project cost staff recommends a
$620,000 reduction in trade corridor enhancement program funds, which the Commission will consider under tab 82
tabs 79 and 80 are related scope amendment requests for the gauge zero
Accelerating zero emission fleet charging on priority freight corridors project, which was nominated by Caltrans and gauge zero and
programmed with 20 million
$177,000 and the 2024 trade corridor enhancement program
the project proposed for
medium and heavy-duty zero-emission vehicle charging stations in Oakland, Ontario, Fresno, and San Diego.
EV Realty acquired gauge zero in March 2025 and inherited the project at the time of programming.
At that time, none of the proposed sites had executed leases or site control.
Tab 79 focuses on the originally proposed Oakland site. As EV Realty worked to secure a leak,
Severe electric grid limitations were identified at the originally proposed Oakland site, making it infeasible.
EV Realty evaluated alternative locations and identified the Liverbore site, which serves similar fleets and routes,
including traffic to and from the Port of Oakland, and is located along a Senate Bill 671 of Priority Freight Corridor.
EV Realty is also proposing to add two additional charging ports and upgrade
all charging ports to the megawatt charging standard, increasing truck throughput and
greenhouse gas emission reduction benefits. Additionally, EV Realty is proposing to remove
the solar generation and battery energy storage system elements because the Livermore site has
sufficient grid power capacity and no longer requires on-site solar or battery storage.
Due to these changes, trade corridor enhancement program funding will be reduced by $934,000.
Tab 80 focuses on the three remaining sites in Ontario, Fresno, and San Diego. As discussed
previously, none of these sites had secured leases or site control at the time of programming.
EV Realty worked in good faith to secure site leases, but the sites ultimately proved to be
and feasible. As a result, EV Realty is proposing to remove the Ontario, Fresno and San Diego
sites and return $14,173,000 in related funding to the program. Combined with the $934,000
reduction under tab 79, the project's funding will be reduced from $20,177,000 to $5,070,000.
staff will bring forward a future program amendment to return $15,116,000 to the program
for programming in a future cycle.
Tab 81 is a scope amendment request for the Green Power Microgrid Project, which was jointly
nominated by the Port of Oakland, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and Caltrans, and
with $41 million, $635,000, for five components in the 2022 Trade Corridor Enhancement Program.
Due to tariffs and increased demand for zero-emission vehicle charging equipment,
the total project cost has risen significantly. To address the shortfall, the port increased its
matching funds from $17.8 million to $49.4 million. However, a funding gap remains. To
To address this funding shortfall, the port is proposing to remove the solar and battery
energy storage system elements from the project's harbor facilities component, which were originally
included to reduce grid reliance and provide clean electricity for the project's 145 zero-emission
freight chargers.
Despite this decrease in benefits, the project will still deliver a significant number of
of critically needed zero emission freight chargers.
Additionally, since the project application
was submitted in 2022, grid reliability
and access to zero carbon electricity has improved,
reducing the impact of removing the solar
and battery energy elements.
To account for the reduction in project benefits,
staff is recommending a proportional reduction
in funding of $3,632,000,
Decreasing the total trade corridor enhancement program funding from $41,635,000 to $38,003,000.
Commissioned staff will bring forward a program amendment at a future meeting to deprogram
the $3,632,000 and return those funds to the program for future programming.
Tab 82 is an amendment to the 2024 trade corridor enhancement program for five projects.
The first project is the Alameda County
Rail Safety Enhancement Program phase A project,
which was jointly nominated by Caltrans
and the Alameda County Transportation Commission
and programmed with $30 million for three components
and the 2024 Trade Corridor Enhancement Program.
The Alameda County Transportation Commission
is requesting a program amendment
to split the package one component
into two separate components outlined in the book item.
If approved, the amendment would increase the total number of program components from
three to four to the creation of a new package four component.
The proposed split would allow for immediate allocation and construction of the package
one crossings, while the agency continues to coordinate on railroad and utility issues
for the package four crossings within the commission's timely use of funds policy.
If the commission approves the program amendment, the project scope will remain intact and the
project's total programed amount will remain the same. The second project is the Baker Boulevard
bridge and zero emission truck infrastructure project which was nominated by the San Bernardino
county transportation authority and programmed with 28 million, nine hundred twelve thousand
dollars for two components in the 2024 trade corridor enhancement program. Due to the long
lead time needed to procure specialized freight charging equipment, the agency is requesting a
program amendment to split the Baker Boulevard bridge and zero emission truck infrastructure
project zero emission component into two components with dedicated components for procurement and
construction. If the commission approves the program amendment the project scope will remain
intact and the project's total programmed amount will remain the same. The third project is the
foreign mobility beyond the dock heavy duty electrification of the Port of Oakland priority
Trade Corridors Project, which was presented as a scope change, which was
just presented as a scope change, excuse me. That recommends a $628,000
reduction in trade corridor enhancement program funds due to a reduced total
project cost. If approved, the amendment would bring the total trade corridor
enhancement program funding from $2,578,000 to $1,950,000
dollars and return $628,000 in savings to the Trade Corridor Enhancement Program for
future programming in a future cycle.
The fourth project is the Long Beach East Los Angeles Corridor Zero Emissions Truck
Project, which was nominated by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
and programmed with $13,653,000 in the 2024 Trade Corridor Enhancement Program.
In March, 2026, the Commission approved a scope amendment to reduce the number of chargers
and upgrade the charging standard to the megawatt charging system, reducing the total project
cost from $28,414,000 to $14,190,000.
Under the Trade Corridor Enhancement Program guidelines, project savings must be returned
to each funding source in proportion to their contribution.
As a result, the program amendment will reduce trade corridor enhancement program funding
from $13,653,000 to $8,550,000 and return $5,103,000 to the program for future programming.
The amendment also reflects the implementing agency change approved by the commission in
March 2026.
The final project is the EV Realty South Bay Truck Charging Hub Project, which was jointly
nominated by Caltrans and EV Realty and programmed with $7,900,000 for a single component in
the 2024 Trade Corridor Enhancement Program.
A program amendment is necessary to reflect a technical change in the implementing agency
from EV Realty to EV Western Tenant LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary.
This change will allow the company to effectively track project-related agreements and contracts.
Tab 83 is a request to approve baseline agreements for two 2024 trade corridor enhancement program
projects.
staff has reviewed these requests and recommends approval of tabs 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, and 83.
Thank you very much, Beverly, you can take a break now.
Public comment.
We did not receive any request to comment on any of these listed items.
Thank you, Justin.
Any comments, questions, motion from the dais on tabs 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, and 83?
Okay, motion by Commissioner Tiffany.
Second by Vice Chair Cruz, all in favor?
No.
Abstentions?
All right, those tabs pass.
Thank you, Beverly.
Local Partnership Program Tab 84, LaShara.
Good morning, commissioners.
Tab 84 is a 2024 local partnership competitive program
amendment for the multi-funded Santa Cruz multimodal corridor
program project in Santa Cruz County.
This amendment splits one of the three existing
programmed components into two separate components,
ultimately adding a fourth overall component.
This amendment preserves the full original scope,
outputs, and local partnership competitive program funding
on the project and allows the implementing agency
to better manage and deliver the project.
There are related action items for this project
under tabs 87 and 88 later on the agenda
to make commensurate changes to the 2024
solutions to congested corridors program
and to approve the baseline agreement, respectively.
Please also note there is a minor non-substantive
edit to the book item noted in the change list.
Staff has reviewed this request
and recommends approval of tab 84.
Thank you, LaShara.
Any public comment?
There was no requested comment on the item.
Okay.
Questions, comments?
Move for approval.
Thank you.
Commissioner Gordino moves, seconded by.
Commissioner Brown-Hines, all in favor?
I would also just say I heard from Santa Cruz,
Mayor Fred Keeley.
He deeply appreciates the work
that the commission continues to do on this
and serves on the regional board as well.
So just wanted to pass along his things.
Please extend our thank yous to Mayor Keeley.
Thank you, Commissioner Gordino.
So approval, yes.
Let's try that one more time.
Aye.
Aye.
Noes, abstentions, and that item passes.
Thank you.
All right, tab 85, Kayla.
Good morning, commissioners.
Tab 85 is an action item to amend
the local partnership formulaic program.
This amendment will make the following updates
to the current formulaic program of projects.
program $449,000 in supplemental funds
to one project in Fresno County.
Program $33,000 in supplemental funds
to one project in Alameda County.
D program $659,000 in cost savings
from one project in San Mateo County.
Add six new projects in Merced, San Mateo,
Lake, Alameda, Contra Costa, Santa Barbara
and Monterey counties and programs $7,067,000 in 2022
and 2024 formulaic program funds
to various project phases in fiscal year 2526 and 2627.
This action programs $3,502,000 in 2022
formulaic program funds and $4,014,000
in 2024 formulaic program funds.
This leaves $13,130,000 of 2022 formulaic program funding
available for programming through June 30th, 2026,
and $76,042,000 of 2024 formulaic program funding
available for programming through June 30th, 2028.
Staff recommends approval of this item.
Thank you, Kayla.
Full of comments.
There's no request to comment on the item.
All right, thank you.
Questions, comments, motion from the dais?
Second.
All right, motion by Commissioner Eger,
seconded by Commissioner Tiffany, all in favor?
Aye.
Any no's, abstentions?
Okay, thank you.
That tab passes.
Tabs 86 and 87, solutions for congested corridors, Matthew.
Yes, thank you, Chair.
I will be covering these for Naveen commissioners tab 86 and 87 are action items that will be
voted together tab 86 amends the 2024 solutions for congested corridors program for the multi-funded
san accrues multimodal corridor program project in san accrues county as provided in this book
item the amendment for this item is related to the action approved under tab 84 just earlier on the
agenda which was for the 2024 local partnership competitive program. Tab 87 requests approval
of one multi-funded baseline agreement in the 2024 solutions for congested corridors program
and the 2024 local partnership competitive program for the Watsonville Santa Cruz multimodal
corridor program project. This baseline agreement reflects changes to the project described under
This is the request.
And this is the first request.
And this is the first request for tab earlier tabs.
84 and 86.
These requests are consistent with the program guidelines and therefore
staff recommends your approval of tabs, 86 and 87.
Thank you, Matthew.
Public comment.
There's no request to comment on the items.
Okay.
Any comments, questions? I see.
The commissioner.
Thank you, sir. All right.
That's it.
By commissioner Tiffany on favor.
And you pose abstention.
Okay. Tabs 86 and 87 passes.
All right.
Tab 88 active transportation program.
transportation program to present a scope amendment request
for the City of Encinitas Santa Fe Drive corridor,
bicycle and pedestrian improvements project,
which is located in San Diego County.
The city has several projects along this corridor.
This project is located on the eastern side
of Santa Fe Drive.
The project scope as submitted in the application
proposes to construct new sidewalks,
curb ramps, cycling, pedestrian rectangular rapid flashing
beacon, striping and signage along the north and south sides
of Santa Fe Drive between Windsor Road and El Camino Real.
At the time of application, the city
was unaware of the direct conflict construction
of sidewalks would have with an existing major drainage channel
on the north side of Santa Fe Drive.
Constructing the sidewalk along the small portion
of the road would require significant additional work and would result in a large cost increase.
For this reason, the city is requesting a scope change to reduce the new sidewalks by
approximately 1,350 feet, but they will add over 1,900 feet of class two bike lanes buffered
and unbuffered. New Americans with disabilities ramps, timing improvements, and signalized
intersection improvements which include pedestrian push buttons and bike
detection. With these changes, the project will maintain the same
connections the community originally requested with the addition of further
safety improvements. Caltrans performed an engineering
assessment of the updated scope and has determined that the revised scope will
increase walking and biking and will provide an increase in safety for active
transportation users. staff has reviewed the scope change request and concur with Caltrans's
assessment and recommends approval of tab 88. Thank you, Alika. Any public comment?
There was no requested comment on this item. Okay, questions, comments, motion from the dais.
Okay, moved by Commissioner Eger seconded by by Commissioner Brown-Hines. All in favor?
He knows abstentions. Okay that item passes. Thank you, Elica
Right tabs eighty nine ninety and ninety one John pray. Yes
commissioners tab eighty nine
Actually eighty nine through ninety one are all action items for shop allocations. So we will take them all together with the recommendation at the end
Tab eighty nine is an action item for shop construction allocations
This item will allocate one hundred and twenty five million five hundred and
$69,000 for four shop projects. As Keith Duncan noted yesterday in his comments, these allocations
are all in alignment with the allocation plan that was approved by the Commission at the December 2025
Commission meeting. Three of the four projects are emergency restoration projects, which falls
under the emergency reopening category in the allocation plan. And then the last one of the four
projects. Excuse me. And by far the biggest of the four is a 100, approximately 118 million
dollar allocation for a fender repair project on the San Francisco Oakland Bay Bridge. It's
unusual for the shop to fund repair and rehabilitation work on state owned toll bridges as this work
is required to be funded by toll revenue. However, in this unique case, the shop is
funding this work because this allocation amount represents the portion of bridge formula
program funds that were allotted for state owned toll bridges from the federal bridge
formula program. Any cost increases on this project will need to be funded from toll revenue.
So that's tab 89 and then tab 90 is an action item for shop pre-construction allocations.
This item will allocate $75,692,000 for 59 shop pre-construction phases for environmental
design and right of way.
And tab 91 is another action item for shop pre-construction allocations.
This item will allocate $30,438,000 for 13 shop pre-construction phases.
This one is separated out and unique because these are all new 2026 shop projects, and
these are all allocations for the PA and ED phase so that these new projects can begin
preliminary design and environmental studies.
So staff recommends approval of tabs 89, 90, and 91.
Thank you, John.
Any public comment?
No, there was no request to comment on any of these items.
questions comments motion from the dais let's okay motion made by Vice Chair
Cruz seconded by Commissioner Eger on favor any nose abstentions okay tabs 89
90 and 91 passes tabs 92 to 94 Sheila thank you
commissioners all present tabs 92 through 94 with a recommendation at the
end. Tab 92 is an allocation request for three million one hundred and thirty
four thousand dollars in the state transportation improvement program and
planning programming and monitoring funds for four locally administered
projects off the state highway system in Humboldt, Mariposa and Del Norte counties.
The projects will improve pedestrian connectivity, rehabilitate local roadways
and support regional transportation planning and monitoring activities.
TAB 93 is an advanced allocation request for $1,032,000 in state
transportation improvement program funds for two locally administered
projects off the state highway system in Mariposa County programmed in fiscal
year 2026 27. The projects will rehabilitate local roadways and improve roadway conditions and safety for travelers in the region. And tab 94 is an advanced allocation request for $957,000 for the locally administered multi funded state transportation improvement program and active transportation program project connecting to COPA.
bicycle and pedestrian safety corridor project off the state highway system in Inyo County
programmed in fiscal year 2026-27. This project will improve bicycle and pedestrian safety and
connectivity within the Takopa community by enhancing active transportation infrastructure
and providing safer multimodal travel options for residents and visitors.
staff recommends your approval of tabs 92 93 and 94 all right thank you Sheila public comment Justin
no there was no request to come on any of these items thank you questions comments
motion from the dais all right motion made by commissioner tiffany seconded by
by commissioner brown hines all in favor
abstentions okay tabs 92 93 and 94 passes
right tabs 95 and 96 back to kayla commissioners tabs 95 and 96 will be
presented together with a recommendation at the end
tab 95 is an allocation request for eight hundred thousand dollars in local
partnership formulaic program funds for the dam road extension roundabout project in lake county
the project will address safety and congestion and improve connectivity on a major corridor
through the city of clear lake tab 96 is an allocation request for a total of five million
nine hundred and twelve thousand dollars in local partnership formulaic program funds for four
projects in Contra Costa, Amador, and Merced counties. These projects will
upgrade signal systems, improve pavement conditions and connectivity, and
rehabilitate existing roadways across their respective counties. Staff has
reviewed these requests and found them to be consistent with local partnership
formulaic program guidelines, and staff recommends your approval of tabs 95 and
96. Thank you, Kayla. Public comment? No, there was no request to comment on the
ahead. Thank you. All right.
Thank you. Questions, comments,
motion from the dice. So moved.
Moved by Commissioner Eger.
Seconded by Commissioner Tiffany.
All in favor? Any no.
Abstentions? Okay. Tabs 95 and 96 pass.
All right. TAB 97. Back to LaShara.
six million three hundred and seventy eight thousand dollars for three local partnership
program projects. This includes two projects from the competitive program and one from the
formulaic program. Two project components from the southeast los angeles transit improvements
project in los angeles county are requesting a total allocation of four million two hundred and
and $50,000 in 2024 local partnership competitive program
funds.
Together, these two projects improve pedestrian safety
by providing solar powered lighting upgrades
and improve transit efficiency by constructing bus
termini at four transit stations in next gen tier one
and two high frequency corridors throughout the I-710
south communities in southeast Los Angeles County.
The third allocation request for $2,128,000 in local partnership formulaic program funds
is for the BART traction power substation project in Alameda and Contra Costa counties.
This project helps BART to safely and efficiently move people throughout the region by procuring
and constructing three traction power substations at critical locations in Richmond, Concord,
and Oakland. Staff recommends your approval of TAB 97.
Thank you, LaShara. Any public comment?
No, there's no request to comment on the item.
All right. Questions, comments? Motion from the dais.
I'll make a motion.
Any motion made by Commissioner Tiffany?
Seconded by...
Okay, by Commissioner Brownhines. All in favor?
Aye.
And he knows. Abstentions. Okay, that tab passes.
All right. Tabs 98 to 101. TCEP allocations. Kenneth, joining us virtually.
Good morning, commissioners. I will present tabs 98 through 101
together with the recommendation at the end.
Tom 98 is an allocation request for $1,950,000 in trade quarter enhancement program funds
for the beyond the dock heavy duty electrification of the Port of Oakland priority trade corridors
project in Alameda County.
The project will accelerate the adoption of heavy duty zero emission vehicles, significantly
reduce greenhouse emissions and harmful pollutants, improving air quality and environmental health
for the community surrounding the port and key freight corridors.
Tom99 is an allocation request for $10,497,000
in freight corridor enhancement program funds
for two projects, including $4,897,000
for the Long Beach East Los Angeles corridor zero emission
truck project in Los Angeles County and $5,600,000
for the Baker Boulevard Bridge and Zero Emission Track Infrastructure Project Zero Emission
Procurement Component in San Bernardino County.
The Long Beach East Los Angeles Corridor Zero Emission Track Project and the Baker Boulevard
Bridge and Zero Emission Track Infrastructure Project Zero Emission Procurement Component
will address needed infrastructure to accelerate the adoption of zero emission freight vehicles,
improving air quality and environmental health
for the communities surrounding the freight corridors.
Top 100 is an allocation request for $5,376,000
in trade corridor enhancement program funds
for the Rail Safety Enhancement Program
Phase A project in Alameda County.
The project will implement improvements
at eight crossings and two trespass areas,
including pedestrian gates, sidewalks, median islands,
fencing, lighting, and signage, improving goods movement efficiency, as well as safety
for all users.
Top 101 is an allocation request for $6,292,000 in trade quarter enhancement program and state
transportation improvement program funds for the Stay Route 4 Wagging Trail Realignment
Project in Calvary County.
The project includes operational improvements to enhance goods movement, reduce collisions,
air quality for the surrounding community and provide a reliable east west evacuation
route. Staff recommends approve your approval of tabs 98, 99, 100, and 101.
Thank you, Kenneth. Public comment? There is no request to comment on these items.
Um, questions, comments? Motion for the dais. Move support.
Okay. Motion by Commissioner Guardino, seconded by Vice Chair Cruz, all in favor.
Aye.
Any no's, abstentions. Okay, tabs 98, 99, 100, and 101 passes.
Tabs 102, 103 together, ATP allocations. Anya, joining us virtually.
Thank you. Good morning.
Commissioners tab one Oh two is
an allocation request for 30
million, $157,000 in active
transportation program funds
for 12 projects in various
counties. These projects will
construct a wide range of
improvements for bicyclists and
conditions for people walking and biking and ensuring a healthy environment for all.
Tab 103 is an allocation request for $1,900,000 in active transportation program funds
for the State Route 49 multimodal corridor improvements project in Nevada County.
the project will install rectangular rapid flashing beacons or RRFBs, enhanced crossings
with refuge islands, shared use paths, roundabouts, lighting, and sidewalks, ensuring multimodal
options and safer conditions for all travelers. Staff recommend your approval of tabs 102 and 103.
Council member Yes. Thank you.
Any public comment? No, there was no request to comment on the items. All
right. Any comments? Questions? Motion from the dais.
Moved by commissioner eager, seconded by.
Okay. Seconded by commissioner Tiffany on.
Many projects.
For eight for funding. This is exciting.
All in favor.
OK, tabs 102 and 103 passes.
Tab 104 at Joining Us Virtually.
Kat will not be able to join us virtually,
so I will present that for her.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsey.
Tab 104 is an allocation request for $26,558,000
for 10 project components in the Transit and Intercity Rail
Capital Program.
These components help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
expand and improve transit services to increase ridership integrate the state's rail services
operations and improve transit safety staff recommends your approval of tab 104 thank you
brandy public comment no there's no requested comment on the items okay uh questions comments
motion from the dais moved by commissioner eager seconded by second commissioner gordino all in
favor. Aye. Yes. Abstentions. And tab 104 passes. LT cap. Tab 105 Rebecca joining us virtually.
Good morning commissioners. Tab 105 is an action item to approve an advanced allocation of 9,630,000
for the local transportation climate adaptation program for the LA Metro A-line Overhead
catenary system resiliency upgrade project off the state highway system in Los Angeles County.
This project will efficiently move people and prioritize safety by replacing 24.2 miles of
existing catenary wires with auto tension catenary wires. Increasing the system's resiliency to
extreme heat by automatically tightening the wires during high heat events to prevent sagging and
loss of connection to rail transit cars, thereby preventing inefficient energy transfer and
potential failure due to the entanglement or breakage of those wires.
Staff recommends your approval of tab 105.
Thank you, Rebecca.
Public comment.
There was not a request to comment on the item.
Thank you.
Motion, questions, comments from the dais.
all right thank you motion by tiffany seconded by commissioner eater on favor
any no extensions okay tab 105 passes tab 106 rebecca back at you thank you
tab 106 is an action item to approve an allocation of three million five
hundred and eighty three thousand dollars for the waterborne ferry program
in the San Francisco Bay Area. This amount is consistent with the proposed budget act of
2026 and the allocation is contingent on the passage of the state budget. This allocation
will prioritize safety and ensure a healthy environment for all by supporting daily transit
reliability, regional service expansion and emergency services for ferry boat operations
in the San Francisco Bay. Staff recommends your approval of tab 106.
right. Thanks, Rebecca. Public comment. There is no request to comment on item 106. Thank you.
Questions, comments, approval. Thank you. Commissioner Bordeo, seconded by. I'll second.
Second by Commissioner Tiffany on favor. Aye. Any noes, abstentions. Okay, that tab passes.
Tabs 107 to 142, Justin. Thank you commissioners.
I'm feeling ambitious. I'll be addressing tabs 107 through 142 together. These are action items
consisting of time extension requests for projects from the following programs.
State highway operation and protection program, state transportation improvement programs,
local partnership program, the trade corridor enhancement program,
solutions for congested corridor program, active transportation program,
the local transportation climate adaptation program, and the transit and inner city rail
capital program. Stop has reviewed these requests and determined they are consistent with the
respective program guidelines. Note that book item, note the book item for top 118 contains
a small error. The memo references the applicant as the county of San Diego, but it should be the
city of San Diego. Also note the following edits to tab 120. The header is revised from March to
May and the extended deadline is revised to April 30th, 2027. Please note the change to tab 135.
Commission staff recommends that the agency receive an additional six months beyond the maximum
time extension allowed under program guidelines for a total of 18 months as shown on the time
extension table. staff recommends your approval of tops 107 through 142. all right thank you
Justin public comment. there is no request to comment on any of those listed items. thank you
uh questions comments motion from the dais. move by commissioner eager second by
Commissioner Tiffany all in favor? No. Abstentions okay tabs 107 142 passes all right tab 143 back to
you Justin. Tab 143 are action items for your consideration regarding the approval of time
extension amendment as exception to the shop guidelines. Tab 143 is an amendment to the shop
project development expenditure appeared for one shop project in siski-u county
staff commission has reviewed this request and recommends approval of tab 143 thank you
justin public comment i have no request to comment questions comments motion from the dice
okay motion made by commissioner tiffany seconded by
All those in favor.
Abstentions.
That tab passes.
Tab 144.
Alikka.
Missionary tab.
144 is an action item to consider amending the period of project
allocation.
For the James town community connectivity project.
structured and unanticipated utility conflicts requiring improvements to be made prior to
the construction of this active transportation program project, which will further impact
the project schedule.
Admissions staff recommends approval of amending the time extension request by eight months
to allow Tuolumne County sufficient time to resolve the utility conflicts before requesting
their construction allocation.
And that's what we're going
to do.
Thank you for coming.
And I'm happy to have recommended approval of tap one 44.
Thank you.
Public comment.
There was no request to comment on the item.
Okay.
Questions, comments, motion.
From dais.
Okay. Motion made by commissioner Tiffany. Thank you. And seconded by.
Seconded by commissioner eager.
All in favor.
Okay, that tab passes. Any additional public comment, Justin?
I don't see any requests to comment at this time.
Any comments from the dais from my esteemed commissioners?
Yes, Vice Chair Cruz.
Madam Chair, I just want to thank all of our wonderful staff for the work that they do and prepare these items for us to look through and make decisions on.
on. I mean just look at the numbers they speak for themselves and what we're
doing on behalf of the people of California by keeping our state
competitive and this is important to keep working and there's five was it
5,925 jobs just created in the actions we took over the last couple days and over
a hundred close to 120 over the course of the year so thanks everybody who's
participated in who continues to provide just incredible staff knowledge on these
issues, so thank you. Thank you. Beautiful comments, thank you Vice Chair Cruz. Any
other comments? Commissioner Gordino, you want to take us home? Thank you very much
to come for coming to San Jose and we look forward to continuing to host you
in the future and look forward to our next meetings. Thank you. Come to San Diego
soon aren't we? Sure. Soon, yeah. I'm looking forward to it. When is the next one? I will let you know. It's in Folsom. Folsom. In Gia. In Folsom. Yes. Just finally thank you to everyone and I just want to echo Vice Chair Cruz's wonderful comments who participated in our our meeting in the last couple days. Today's actions we allocated nearly five hundred and forty million dollars to critical transportation projects.
up and down the state.
We would not be able to do this alone, and I'd like to thank Caltrans and our regional
agencies for their continued partnership, as well as VTA and the City of San Jose for
hosting us this week in this wonderful facility.
I would also like to thank the members of the Interagency Equity Advisory Committee for
their continued engagement and participation in our meeting on Wednesday.
And we look forward to seeing you in Folsom next month.
And with that, please travel safely back to your homes and we will see you next month.
Thank you.
Meeting adjourned.
Well done.
Great job, Madam Chair.